thanks for the link...some interesting stuff there.........would be kind of strange to see a 787 with a six-wheel truck.....

also interesting to see Rolls Royce will be able to build a larger engine to get the thrust needed, as Boeing's Baseler has been saying that if the engine manufacturers can build the engine, then they'll be able to build the plane.

I think it will only emphasise the 787's superiority over the 350; at 8 abreast, the 787-10 is probably a bit better than the 350-900, but at nine abreast, you're talking of about 30-40 extra seats and that can make a very significant impact on economics. EK will be a 9 abreast customer, since it already does 10 across on 777s.

EK is a bit concerned about the 787-10's range, but many other airlines won't be quite as concerned about that; from the perspective of an airline like Aer Lingus - a possible 787/350 customer - 14,000kms (around 8,000mi) which is considerably more than most carriers need and as we know - from examples like SQ - airlines on ULH flights tend to allow more space, not least to control weight and boost range.

In addition to the u/c being strenghtened, Boeing is also looking to put a 777 style 6 wheel main u/c on the 787-10.

From 787-9 MTOW or from the 560 ton MTOW estimate, which was supposed to be based on the max weight the undercarriage can support? If they are considering a modification to the undercarriage, does mean that Boeing is shooting for greater than 560 ton MTOW? And if they modify the undercarriage, would they strengthen it enough to support an even larger -11 variant stretched by another 6m?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1):So what will its economics be if they cram nine abreast seats into the -10 like the other post is talking about airlines doing with the -3, -8, and -9?

If the plane is anything like this, the 787 family will offer great versatility from the 787-3 to the 787-10.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2):thanks for the link...some interesting stuff there.........would be kind of strange to see a 787 with a six-wheel truck.....

also interesting to see Rolls Royce will be able to build a larger engine to get the thrust needed, as Boeing's Baseler has been saying that if the engine manufacturers can build the engine, then they'll be able to build the plane.

again, thanks for the link.

my pleasure. It was very interesting about the part with upgraded engines, and strengthened undercarriage. It will be interesting to see if EK and SQ orders this plane.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):From 787-9 MTOW or from the 560 ton MTOW estimate, which was supposed to be based on the max weight the undercarriage can support? If they are considering a modification to the undercarriage, does mean that Boeing is shooting for greater than 560 ton MTOW? And if they modify the undercarriage, would they strengthen it enough to support an even larger -11 variant stretched by another 6m?

From my understanding of the article it does mean they are shooting for a greater MTOW.

Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):And if they modify the undercarriage, would they strengthen it enough to support an even larger -11 variant stretched by another 6m?

A 75 meter B787-11X would need 6 wheel bogeys not only to distribute the weight but also to avoid tail strikes during rotation by employing the same trick as the B777-300 (which pushes the aft axle down and the front axle up).

The purpose of strengthening landing gear for heavier derivatives are not for potential increases in MTOW later on. It is for when they touchdown on landing, the struts experience greater stresses than their original MTOW, i.e much more. It depends on the rate of decent and the strut's shock/cylinder travel.

The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.

Now I wish LY would change their 772 orders to 773, and order the 787-10 with the other 787 they are expected to order next year.

The 773 would keep their engine commanality with the other 772ER (RR Trents 895) and would still have the range for TLV - NYC, TLV - LHR and TLV -BKK. Those would probably be the routes the a/c would do.

Hmmm. I am surprised that Rolls seems to be gaining the upper hand in the 787 market, especially after GE has prooven so agile when it came to securing exclusivity on the 777NG and the 747-8. Is GE falling behind so early in the program as to ignore the engine for the 787-10???

Hope not!
While I am a GE fan, I'm still glad to see RR competing handily. But what I want is competition- both of them- not either of them alone.

In any event, this is exciting news for Boeing, though I am surprised that they're talking about orders in March!!

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 11):Hmmm. I am surprised that Rolls seems to be gaining the upper hand in the 787 market, especially after GE has prooven so agile when it came to securing exclusivity on the 777NG and the 747-8. Is GE falling behind so early in the program as to ignore the engine for the 787-10???

Just because we haven't seen GE release a statement doesn't mean they won't compete. After all, they have the GE90 experience to draw upon. It's not like they don't know big engines. Furthermore, GE Aviation is "ahead" of RR on the A350 at the moment, so I don't think they're crying too much. You can't be first at everything.

When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):A 75 meter B787-11X would need 6 wheel bogeys not only to distribute the weight but also to avoid tail strikes during rotation by employing the same trick as the B777-300 (which pushes the aft axle down and the front axle up).

Would an -11 be a possibility in the 9-14 year time frame? Then what will happen to the Y3? It must be huge.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 11):Hmmm. I am surprised that Rolls seems to be gaining the upper hand in the 787 market, especially after GE has proved so agile when it came to securing exclusivity on the 777NG and the 747-8. Is GE falling behind so early in the program as to ignore the engine for the 787-10???

Could the reason for GE's hesitation be that they have the 772LR market, and don't want to rush the development? I am sure that when the if this turn out to be true, the Genx will provide with more power. It amazes me that the they can offer a thrust range from 53 000 lb thrust 80 000 thrust with the same fan diameter.

Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 11):Hmmm. I am surprised that Rolls seems to be gaining the upper hand in the 787 market, especially after GE has prooven so agile when it came to securing exclusivity on the 777NG and the 747-8. Is GE falling behind so early in the program as to ignore the engine for the 787-10???

Hope not!
While I am a GE fan, I'm still glad to see RR competing handily. But what I want is competition- both of them- not either of them alone.

The GEnx core is supposedly less upwards scalable than the Trent 1000 core.

Atmx2000, sorry for breaking away from our previous conversation on the 787-10 a few weeks ago (had to heed to the call of my job). Thanks for setting me straight on the fact that the 787 airframe was weight-limited as opposed to being volume-limited (as I had erroneously assumed).

It will be interesting to see how GE responds to this new requirement now that RR kind of has a leg up.

Another interesting scenario is what happens to the 789? Is the gap between the 788 and the 787-10 (78A? - think hexadecimal) big enough for the 789 to stand alone and not have it's marketshare cannibalized by it's siblings?

I do wonder if the -10 will cancel the -9. If the 764 had been done early, it would have superceeded a bunch of 763 sales (not all, some customers had a transpacific need for the 763ER's range).

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 3):EK will be a 9 abreast customer, since it already does 10 across on 777s.

EK will buy on uplift. Range... will be a concern with them, but I expect the 787's to be used mostly for A330 supersizing and replacement. Although, maybe EK wants something to also augment their soon to be extensive 777/346 fleet? I'll have to look at their route map when I have more time. If someone can add some facts on the EK range needs, I would appreciate it.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 3):In addition to the u/c being strenghtened, Boeing is also looking to put a 777 style 6 wheel main u/c on the 787-10.

Translation: GE optimized for minimal fuel burn at the specified thrust levels. RR left a little growth room. Also, the tripple spool is a little easier to upthrust than a double spool. I don't doubt GE will step up to the plate. More than likely it will be a la GE-90-115, a slightly larger fan for the same nacelle (if possible, I do not know anything about the 787 nacelle characteristics). As I think about it, the shared nacelle *might* prevent GE from expanding the diameter...

I thought the 787 would do well, Boeing is taking a winning horse and changing the rules of the race. However, this means that *soon* Boeing will have to turn on all of the vendors for the 2nd assembly line. I believe this is refered to as a "classy kind of problem to have" in the business world.

I think it is fascinating that Rolls has taken an upper hand in up- certifying the Trent 1000. I think it should be noted however, that in this size market, rolls already has a sizeable advantage (a la the 777-200er). Many of the airlines which would be looking to purchase the 787-10 already have rolls engines in their 777 fleet. I do think however, surely GE, with the incredible GE90 engine, can certainly use some of their high thrust technology, to apply to the GEnx. I am certain we will see great things from both companies. Congratulations to both as well as Boeing for finally admitting they are working on a -10 variant. While I am sad to think about what it may do to sales of my favorite aircraft, the 777, they are sure to secure a most difinitive advantage over airbus. I really think they are gonna out do themselves on this one, just like they did with the 777!

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 20):I really think they are gonna out do themselves on this one, just like they did with the 777!

Actually, I think the B777 is a case for how not to do it. Rolls Royce took an early lead from PW, then ultimatly got shoved out of the way by Ge90. They had the largest market share, but they didn't secure the 777LR and now GE has pulled ahead.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 20):Congratulations to both as well as Boeing for finally admitting they are working on a -10 variant.

Boeing has "admitted" to looking at the 787-10 for some time. Perhaps 6-12 months.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 13):Would an -11 be a possibility in the 9-14 year time frame? Then what will happen to the Y3? It must be huge.

If Boeing were to build a B787-11X (about the length of the A340-600), then Y3 would start with about 350-380 seats in the shortest version. It would still be smaller (and much lighter) than the WhaleJet.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 18):
If Boeing develops a -11, then maybe the plane would require a larger wing surface? The 777 has a much larger wing surface than the 787.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):No chance. Boeing's policy is a roughly 20% size difference between models. The difference between the B787-8 and B787-10 is greater than that.

On the otherhand, the difference between the 787-8 and 787-9 is less than 20%, and the difference between the 787-10 and 787-9 would be even less if they increase by the same 6m. Perhaps a proportional increase in cabin length would make more sense, increasing the 787-10 length by 7-8m.

ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!

25 MD-90
: But it really doesn't cost Boeing very much extra to have those different fuselage lengths. If they could do it with the 707, it's even better today w

26 AA777223
: I was talking about Boeing and the triple 7 in general, not Rolls Royces engines.

27 OyKIE
: Although one could say that plane sizes increase when a new model is available, I think this is a better sizewise comparsion. The 757-300 is much sma